Back in August I asked Is the BBC becoming a ‘Badly Biased Corporation? regarding Christianity in the Olympics. This was a week after having observed The biased BBC doesn’t know about Jerusalem; that is, its reporting and editorial staff are plainly ‘pig ignorant’ of the basic facts on that location’s especial history and status. Next, a few days later events confirmed my remarks and I couldn’t escape concluding.:
“Thus, it’s clearly evident the Badly Biased Corporation does display double standards.”
A month later fellow blogger Gillan Scott wrote Don’t believe everything you read (even if it’s by the BBC) and noted:
“In order to simplify the narrative of a news story or to present it from a certain angle our broadcasters and newspapers will not always give viewers or readers information about the bigger picture. Most of us who follow the news know this happens, especially in the newspapers, but the problem is we don’t know what we’re not being told and that can lead to inaccurate beliefs and perceptions being reinforced even if we’re aware of biased reporting.
“Even the BBC, supposedly balanced in its coverage of the news, can’t always be trusted…” [emphasis mine]
Gillan then proceeds to give three examples of unhappy experiences of contact with the BBC all in the space of one article and remarks, “Not what you’d hope for”.
Once renowned and envied worldwide for practising the highest standards in journalism the BBC is now verging on bigotry. This is a most regrettable situation and directors are now taking the consequences for allowing a long decline in falling ethical standards. So a fortnight ago Gillan reblogged a commentary by Christen Forster under the heading The BBC and the dangers of rejecting your Christian roots – regular readers may recall my earlier references to Christen, whose updated comments are found on his original post, British Institutions and the Promises of God << NB: Highly recommended reading.
Last week The Commentator observed Shocking BBC bias as EU talks get under way, remarking it would have been logical for the PM’s aides to prepare by looking at what’s appearing in the press [again, emphases are mine]. :
Across the traditional media they (PM’s aides) would have found a plurality of views reflecting the broad concerns that British people routinely express when the question of EU membership takes centre stage.
Not if they’d consulted the BBC.
If you open up the BBC website you’ll find a prominent article entitled: “Viewpoints: How experts see UK role in EU“. It all sounds very promising; just the sort of thing a political advisor would be looking for….
It’s not funny. It violates every rule of journalistic objectivity in the book. And it’s an insult to British licence fee payers who have a right to expect an even handed approach to all issues, but especially one so central to the UK’s vital national interests.
The Commentator concludes:
And there we have it. Not a single analyst or representative offering the view that Britain might do well either out of the EU altogether or with a radically reformed relationship.
We think that this is unacceptable.
A bigoted broadcasting corporation?
The Oxford Dictionary describes ‘bigoted’ as an adjective and gives this definition:
- having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others: a bigoted group of reactionaries a bigoted article.
The Merriam-Webster has ‘bigoted’ as the adjective of the noun ‘bigot’, which means:
- a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
To my mind it certainly appears that the BBC is verging upon, if not, exhibiting bigotry. I will show briefly in the next post how this makes its Middle-East reporting unreliable.